DES17 v Minister for Immigration
[2017] FCCA 3136
•20 December 2017
FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| DES17 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR | [2017] FCCA 3136 |
| Catchwords: PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – Application for an extension of time within which to make a competent application to the Court – consideration of factors – considerable delay in making application – no reasonable explanation for the delay – no reasonable prospects of success – application refused. |
| Legislation: Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss.36, 426A, 441A, 441C, 476, 477 |
| Cases cited: SZRIQ v Federal Magistrates Court of Australia[2013] FCA 1284Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.(2013) 236 FCR 442 MZZLD v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection[2016] FCA 1201 MZABP v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection[2016] FCAFC 110 Ahmed v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection[2016] FCA 751 SZTES v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection[2015] FCAFC 158 Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd v Cohen[1984] FCA 176; (1984) 3 FCR 344 |
| Applicant: | DES17 |
| First Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION |
| Second Respondent: | ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL |
| File Number: | SYG 2240 of 2017 |
| Judgment of: | Judge Nicholls |
| Hearing date: | 31 October 2017 and 29 November 2017 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 29 November 2017 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 20 December 2017 |
REPRESENTATION
| Applicant: | In person |
| Solicitors for the Respondents: | Ms S Burnett of Clayton Utz |
ORDERS
The application for an extension of time made pursuant to s.477(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) on 17 July 2017 is refused.
The applicant pay the first respondent’s costs set in the amount of $6,000.
| FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYG 2240 of 2017
| DES17 |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION |
First Respondent
| ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL |
Second Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
This is an application made pursuant to s.477(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (“the Act”) on 17 July 2017, seeking an extension of time within which to make a competent application to the Court pursuant to s.476 of the Act, seeking review of the decision of the then Refugee Review Tribunal, now the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) which, on 29 June 2012, affirmed the decision of the Minister’s delegate (“the delegate”) to refuse a protection (Class XA) visa to the applicant.
Section 477(1) of the Act requires that any such application be made within 35 days of the date of the relevant Tribunal decision. In the current case, the application was filed outside that time limit by almost 5 years. The application is therefore not competent.
Section 477(2) provides for an extension of time within which to make a competent application to the Court if the applicant makes an application for an extension of time in writing, and the Court considers that it is in the interests of the administration of justice to extend time.
The applicant has made such an application in writing. The grounds of that application are in the following terms:
“1. For not being aware of the Judicial procedure available in FCC.
2. Fear of getting detained and deported back to the country of origin if got caught by the authority which may result in physical and mental torture including death of applicant.”
[Errors in original.]
Before the Court
When the application to extend time came on for hearing on 31 October 2017, the applicant appeared in person. He claimed that he was suffering from a “mental illness” and sought an adjournment of the hearing. He claimed to have been depressed by the breakdown of the relationship with his former spouse, and that he had become mentally “distorted”.
The applicant explained that he was being held in immigration detention, and was undergoing a “mental health” assessment, conducted by a psychologist, whom he was scheduled to see the next day.
I granted the adjournment. Leave was also granted to the applicant to file evidence of his mental condition, and in particular, on the issue of his capacity to participate in the hearing of his application to extend time. The matter was listed for resumption of the hearing of the extension of time application on 29 November 2017.
The applicant subsequently filed and served an affidavit made by him on 19 November 2017 with annexures. The affidavit annexed a number of medical records. Amongst the annexures was a report by a clinical psychologist dated 6 November 2017 (“psychological report”).
On resumption of the hearing to extend time on 29 November 2017, the applicant again appeared in person. He confirmed that he did not require the assistance of an interpreter.
The applicant sought a further adjournment of the hearing because of what he said was his mental condition. The applicant was unable to provide any indication of the length of the adjournment that he sought. The Minister opposed the granting of the further adjournment.
I refused the further adjournment that the applicant requested. First, none of the applicant’s medical evidence addressed, let alone expressly stated, that the applicant was not capable of participating in the hearing because of any mental illness or impairment, or indeed any other medical reason.
Second, while the evidence reveals that the applicant has, while in immigration detention, been the subject of medical attention since August 2017, the majority of such attention was for physical and not “mental” concerns (for example, treatment for a perianal fistula and an ultrasound examination of his right knee).
Third, the psychological report does make reference to the applicant reporting symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”) and obsessive compulsive disorder. However, there is nothing in the psychological report either expressly, or by inference, to indicate that the applicant was not capable of understanding and participating in the hearing before the Court.
Fourth, as I explained to the applicant, one part of the psychological report provides a powerful argument against granting the adjournment, particularly for an indefinite period.
Under the heading of “Summary of Symptoms” (page 6 of the psychological report), the psychologist states that “[the applicant] is distressed and fearful due to the uncertainty regarding his future [in context, this included his immigration status] and threat of being deported”, which contribute to the applicant’s PTSD and anxiety related symptoms.
In my view, the resolution of the current application to extend time as soon as is reasonably practicable, would, based on the psychological report, avoid any further exacerbation of the applicant’s anxiety. As I explained to the applicant, no matter the outcome, the resolution of his application before the Court would remove a large element of the “uncertainty” that he claimed was contributing to his mental condition.
Fifth, in the absence of any definite time for the adjournment, it was not appropriate in the circumstances, to grant an adjournment which would result in the applicant remaining in immigration detention indefinitely and leaving his matter before the Court unresolved.
Although not determinative of the matter, I note that before the Court the applicant presented as thoughtful, calm, responsive and engaged in a fashion that demonstrated he understood what was being said.
Consideration
The issue for the Court now, is whether it is in the interests of the administration of justice to extend time. The factors to be considered in relation to the question of the extension of time are not exhaustive. However, there are a large number of authorities which provide direction and guidance to this Court, as to how to approach the consideration contemplated by s.477(2) of the Act (SZRIQ v Federal Magistrates Court of Australia [2013] FCA 1284Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.(2013) 236 FCR 442, SZUWX v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection[2016] FCAFC 77Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.(2016) 238 FCR 456, MZZLD v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection[2016] FCA 1201, MZABP v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection[2016] FCAFC 110, Ahmed v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection[2016] FCA 751 and SZTES v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection[2015] FCAFC 158 see also Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd v Cohen[1984] FCA 176; (1984) 3 FCR 344 at [18] – [23]).
In the current case, the particular factors arising from the circumstances presented in considering the exercise of discretion appear to be, the length of the delay, whether any satisfactory, or reasonable, explanation has been given for the delay, whether the Minister would suffer any prejudice if time were extended, and whether the proposed substantive application for judicial review is sufficiently or reasonably arguable, or has reasonable prospects of success, or has such merit to justify the extension of time, to allow the matter to proceed to a final hearing in the interests of the administration of justice. In deciding whether to grant an application for an extension of time, the grounds of the proposed substantive application should have such prospects of success so as not to render the extension of time an exercise in futility.
The evidence before the Court is a bundle of relevant documents filed and tendered by the Minister (“the Court Book” – “CB”, “RE1”). A second bundle of relevant documents was also filed and tendered by the Minister (“the Supplementary Court Book” – “SCB”, “RE2”). Also in evidence is the applicant’s affidavit of 19 November 2017 and an affidavit of Mr Aaron Markus Moss, Lawyer, made on 27 September 2017, filed by the Minister.
The Tribunal’s decision was made on 29 June 2012. Pursuant to s.477(1) of the Act, the application to be made by the applicant pursuant to s.476 of the Act, should have been made to the Court on or before 3 August 2012. The application for review was lodged on 17 July 2017. The application is just under five years out of time.
The period of delay is extreme. I agree with the Minister that there is a significant public interest in the “finality of litigation” concerning Tribunal decisions (Re Commonwealth; ex parte Marks [2000] HCA 67; (2000) 177 ALR 491). The length of the delay in this case when viewed in light of the clear statutory intention, is a powerful element on its own in refusing to extend time (Re Refugee Tribunal Tribunal; Ex parte Aala [2000] HCA 57; (2000) 204 CLR 82
at [56] – [57] and SAAP v Minister for Immigration, Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] HCA 24; (2005) 228 CLR 294 at [80]).
Further, the applicant has not provided any satisfactory explanation by way of evidence, or provided any relevant indication in the stated grounds in support of the application to extend time, to show that it is in the interests of the administration of justice to extend time.
The applicant has put two unparticularised assertions in explanation of his application to extend time. This is also a strong element against the granting of the extension of time.
Before the Court, the applicant was given the opportunity of further explaining the reason for his lengthy delay in making his application. The explanation offered was that he “did not know” of the option of coming to Court when he received the Tribunal’s decision.
It is not clear whether the applicant was notified by the Tribunal of the opportunity to come to this Court at the time of the notification of the Tribunal’s decision. While the letter of notification refers to “attachments” to the letter (CB 74), the attachments have not been put into evidence before the Court.
I gave the applicant the opportunity to further explain the delay from the bar table with a view to seeing whether it was useful, or appropriate, to put the applicant into the witness box to give any further explanation on oath or affirmation.
However, it was not necessary to do so. First, the applicant said nothing to indicate that any further explanation of the delay would be available. Second, the Minister accepted that the Court should proceed on the basis that the applicant did not know of the option of coming to Court.
In the absence of particulars and evidence, and even accepting the applicant’s explanation to the Court, claimed ignorance of the law cannot be considered a satisfactory explanation (SZSDA v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2012] FCA 1319; (2012) 135 ALD 17 (“SZSDA”)). The applicant has not pointed to any feature of his circumstances to support the grant of the extension of time in this regard. The applicant also gave no reasonable explanation to the Court as to why, in the almost five years after the Tribunal made its decision, he made no attempt to regularise his immigration status.
The claim that the delay was caused by his “fear” of being deported, also provides no satisfactory explanation. I agree with the Minister’s submissions that ([20] of the Minister’s written submissions):
“… as explained by Scarlett FM (as he then was) in SZOOT v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, ‘[t]he fact that a person has been avoiding the Department … because he knows that he is an unlawful non-citizen does not constitute an acceptable explanation for the delay in applying for judicial review of the Tribunal decision’. Although it may be accepted that the applicant fears that he may be returned to Nepal, and harmed, if the extension is refused, this does not remedy an otherwise insufficient explanation.”
[Footnotes omitted.]
Further, I respectfully note what Justice Foster said in SZSDA at [38] as follows:
“In the present case, there is no satisfactory explanation for the delay. Whilst one may have considerable sympathy for a litigant in person who does not know that he may have a capacity to bring a judicial review application in the Federal Magistrates Court and therefore fails to do so within the stipulated timeframe, ignorance of those requirements (without more) is generally not regarded as a satisfactory explanation for delay. Accordingly, in the present case, it is fair to say that there is no satisfactory explanation for the delay of almost eight months.”
The circumstances in the current case are analogous to what occurred in SZSDA. The one obvious difference is that in SZSDA, the delay was about eight months, while in the current case, it is almost five years.
In all therefore, there is no satisfactory or reasonable explanation for the applicant’s significant delay in coming to Court in this case. This would, in my view and in the circumstances, be a sufficient reason to refuse the application to extend time on its own.
In any event, there is no merit in the grounds of the proposed substantive application. The grounds of the proposed substantive application to the Court are in the following terms:
“1. Delegate made jurisdictional errors in paragraph 32, 34, 37, 40 and 44.
2. Sweeping judgements and assumptions been made in the decision which can be argued as procedurally unfair to the applicant.
3. Applicant is seeking review as he is facing fear of significant torture & harm & even death if returned to the country of birth.”
[Errors in original.]
The applicant is a citizen of Nepal who arrived in Australia on 25 July 2009 as a dependent of his wife who held a student visa (CB 13 and CB 49.5). The applicant applied for a protection visa which was received by the Minister’s department on 30 September 2011 (CB 1 to CB 33). The applicant’s claims to fear harm were contained in a written statement attached to his visa application form (CB 26 to CB 29).
The applicant claimed to fear harm from Maoists because he used to be an active member of the Maoist Party, but in 2006 he “quit the Maoist Party and entered in (sic) Nepali Congress” Party, which was a “political enemy” of the Maoist Party (CB 27). The applicant claimed that the Maoists “blamed” him for telling the Nepali Congress Party “their secret policies and behaviour”, and threatened his life (CB 27).
The applicant claimed that he was warned to leave his village in December 2007, and after the April 2008 election, the Maoist Party became the biggest political party in Nepal. The applicant claimed that during the election campaign he had been “beaten” by Maoists and went to hospital. The applicant claimed he was harassed by the Maoists to leave the Nepali Congress Party but refused to do so. They became more aggressive and they were “giving” him “more pressure, torture, harassment, bullying and etc” (CB 28).
The applicant then stated that he came to Australia with his wife who was the holder of a student visa. They subsequently separated, and the applicant stated that he did not inform the Minister’s department of his protection claims earlier because he was already the holder of an Australian visa, and thought that he was going to become a permanent resident with his wife at the completion of her studies (CB 28 and CB 29).
The applicant was invited to, and attended, an interview with the delegate on 14 February 2012 (CB 43 to CB 44). However, at the interview, the applicant informed the delegate that he did not wish to answer any questions regarding his application and indicated that the delegate should make the decision based on his written claims. The delegate explained to the applicant that on the information currently before the delegate, the application could be refused. The applicant indicated that he understood (CB 49.7 to CB 49.8).
The delegate refused the application for the visa on 2 March 2012 and the applicant was notified by letter of the same date (CB 45 to CB 59). The applicant made an application for review which was received by the Tribunal on 26 March 2012 (CB 60 to CB 65). The applicant was invited to attend a hearing on 19 June 2012 which was rescheduled for 26 June 2012 (CB 69 to CB 73). [I note that the Tribunal states in its decision record that the applicant did not appear at the Tribunal hearing on 19 June 2012. In context, this should be a reference to 26 June 2012, as the Tribunal hearing was rescheduled due to the unavailability of the Tribunal member (see CB 72 to CB 73)].
The Tribunal affirmed the delegate’s decision on 29 June 2012 and the applicant was notified by letter dated 2 July 2012 (CB 74 to CB 83). The Tribunal stated that the applicant’s claims were “relatively brief, vague and lacking in detail”, and it was unable to “obtain further detail or evidence from the applicant at the hearing” ([33] at CB 81). Further, the Tribunal considered that the “delay of more than 2 years” between arriving in Australia and applying for a protection visa, was inconsistent with the applicant’s claims to fear harm ([34] at CB 81 to CB 82).
On the basis of country information, the “limited evidence” before the Tribunal, and the Tribunal’s inability “to test the veracity of the applicant’s claims at a hearing”, the Tribunal did not accept that the applicant was at risk of harm on return to Nepal. The Tribunal found that the applicant did not meet the criterion at ss.36(2)(a) or 36(2)(aa) of the Act for the grant of the visa ([32] at CB 81 to [44] at CB 83).
Ground one of the proposed substantive application asserts jurisdictional error in [32] (at CB 81), [34] (at CB 81 to CB 82), [37] (at CB 82), [40] (at CB 82) and [44] (at CB 82) of the Tribunal’s decision record. While the applicant states in his ground that the reference is to the delegate’s decision, no such paragraphs exist in the delegate’s decision, and in the absence of particulars it is appropriate in my view, to consider the complaints in light of the Tribunal’s decision record which does contain such paragraph numbers (however, see further below).
Paragraph [34] (at CB 81 to CB 82) of the Tribunal’s decision record contains the Tribunal’s findings in relation to the applicant’s delay in applying for protection after arrival in Australia (I note also the details contained in [32] at CB 81). The applicant entered Australia on 25 July 2009 as the holder of a student dependent visa. That is, he was dependent on the student visa granted to his then spouse. The Tribunal found he applied for protection more than two years later. The Tribunal found this delay to be inconsistent with the applicant’s claim to have left Nepal because he feared harm. The Tribunal found he delayed a further nine months after divorcing his wife before applying for the protection visa.
No legal error is apparent in the Tribunal taking the delay into account. It was reasonably open to the Tribunal to find that the delay, in the circumstances, was an element leading to its finding that the applicant’s claim to fear harm was not well-founded (Selvadurai v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs [1994] FCA 1105; (1994) 34 ALD 347).
Paragraphs [37] (at CB 82), [40] (at CB 82) and [44] (at CB 83) of the Tribunal’s decision record contain the Tribunal’s conclusions in relation to the applicant’s claims. On what was before the Tribunal, these findings and conclusions were all reasonably open to it.
Before the Court, the applicant initially insisted that his primary grievance was with the delegate’s decision. This was explained as being because he did attend the interview with the delegate.
As I explained to the applicant, this Court has no jurisdiction to review the delegate’s decision (s.476(2) of the Act). Therefore, any such complaint could not assist him in the current consideration of the exercise of the discretion to extend time pursuant to s.477(2) of the Act.
Ground two of the proposed substantive application refers to procedural “unfair[ness]”. The ground appears to draw this from what the applicant in the grounds also states are “[s]weeping judgements and assumptions” made by the Tribunal.
Procedural fairness is focused on the process of the review, and not whether the Tribunal made a fair or correct decision (SZBEL v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous affairs [2006] HCA 63; (2006) 231 ALR 592).
As referred to earlier, the Tribunal invited the applicant to a hearing. It wrote to the applicant informing him that it was unable to reach a favourable decision on the material before it, and invited him to the hearing to give evidence and make his argument. The initial scheduled date for the hearing was 19 June 2012 (CB 69 to CB 71).
There is nothing from the applicant now to say that he did not receive this invitation from the Tribunal. On the evidence before the Court, the letter inviting the applicant complied with all the relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.
It is the case that the Tribunal wrote to the applicant on 14 June 2012, to inform him that the hearing was to be rescheduled to 26 June 2012 (CB 72 to CB 73). On the evidence, it appears the letter was delivered on 18 June 2012 (CB 71). There is no evidence from the applicant to dispute this.
I agree with the Minister that in rescheduling the hearing, the Tribunal was not required to provide the same prescribed period of notice as had earlier been provided to the applicant, but was obliged to provide a reasonable period. (Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs v SZFML and Anor [2006] FCAFC 152; (2006) 154 FCR 572).
While the letter was delivered on 18 June 2012, I note it was sent in accordance with s.441A(4) of the Act. In the circumstances, the applicant is deemed, by the relevant statutory provisions, to have received the letter one day before the rescheduled hearing date (s.441C(4) of the Act).
Nevertheless, I agree with the Minister, that the period was reasonable in all the circumstances as follows ([34] of the Minister’s written submissions):
“(a) The Tribunal’s Australia Post tracking report records that the letter was actually delivered two working days after the date of dispatch, on 18 June 2012 (CB 71).
(b) The applicant was given a 21 day notice period before the original hearing date, in excess of the 14-day period prescribed by r 4.35D of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (CB 69);
(c) The applicant had not responded to the original hearing invitation;
(d) The applicant was uncooperative in his interview before the Delegate. He refused to answer any questions ‘because he did not want to talk about what happened in Nepal’, and invited the Delegate to proceed to resolve his matter on the papers (CB 49);
(e) The Delegate had previously given the applicant an opportunity to put on further material after [the] hearing, but that opportunity was not taken (CB 49-50);
(f) The applicant had a period of over two months between the Delegate’s decision and the first invitation to the Tribunal hearing to prepare any further material that he wished to put before the Tribunal, yet none was forthcoming (CB 59, 69);
(g) As outlined above, the applicant was notified that the Tribunal was unable to determine the application in his favour on the basis of the material before it, and might proceed to finalise the application in his absence if he did not attend the hearing (CB 69, 72);
(h) The applicant did not contact the Tribunal at any point to request the rescheduled hearing to be postponed or adjourned, or to explain his non-appearance (CB 80, [26]).”
In the circumstances, it was reasonably open to the Tribunal to proceed to a decision pursuant to s.426A of the Act, without taking further action to enable the applicant to appear before it. In the circumstances, there is no denial of procedural fairness. Nor was the decision to proceed affected by legal unreasonableness (Kaur v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCA 915; (2014) 236 FCR 393 and AZAFB v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] FCA 1383; (2015) 244 FCR 144).
In any event, in the current case, the Tribunal gave reasons for proceeding to a decision (see [24] at CB 79 to [27] at CB 80). Those reasons, when fairly read, arose from the relevant circumstances which the Tribunal had set out previously in its decision record. These circumstances included that the applicant had been invited to an interview with the delegate. It appears that the applicant did attend the interview with the delegate, but declined to answer any questions and told the delegate that he wanted a decision to be made on the papers (CB 49.7).
Further, there is no evidence that the applicant responded to either of the letters of invitation to hearing sent to him by the Tribunal. On the evidence before the Court, the applicant made his application for review, and then took no further action to prosecute his application.
The applicant’s inaction occurred in circumstances where the Tribunal sent various letters to him, reminding him that he could submit documents or written arguments (see CB 67.7, CB 69.10 and CB 70.1). Nothing was received by the Tribunal.
Before the Court, the applicant stated that he knew of the invitation to appear at a hearing before the Tribunal, but that he elected not to attend. No arguable case of legal error is raised in relation to ground two.
Ground three of the proposed substantive application merely states that the applicant is seeking judicial review because he fears “significant torture [and] harm [and] death” if he were to return to Nepal. In the circumstances, this ground does not rise above a request for the Court to engage in impermissible merits review. Ground three lacks merit.
The application to extend time should be refused. The delay in this case is significant. The five year delay has not been satisfactorily explained. There is also no arguable case of legal error in the grounds of the proposed substantive application. Nor can I otherwise see, on the evidence before the Court, any other matter that weighs in favour of the extension of time.
A further consideration in this case is that of the interests of the Australian community. The applicant came to Australia on 25 July 2009 as the holder of a student visa (CB 13). On his own claims, he came to Australia as the dependent of his then wife, who had been granted a visit to study in Australia (CB 17).
The Tribunal found that the applicant did not apply for a protection visa until more than two years after his arrival in Australia. Further, and in this circumstance, this was nine months after the relationship with his spouse had broken down ([34] at CB 81 to CB 82). The Tribunal found this to be inconsistent with his claim to fear harm before he left Nepal ([34] at CB 81 to CB 32).
On his own voluntary submission to the Court now, the applicant stated that he knew of the hearing before the Tribunal, but chose not to attend because of what he said, was his experience before the delegate.
Even accepting the applicant’s claim that he did not know of the option of coming to Court, the applicant did nothing, for example by way of making enquiries to seek to regularise his immigration status. On what is before the Court, it would appear that the applicant simply avoided immigration officials for five years, and only sought judicial review after having been taken into immigration detention.
In my view, there is an expectation by the Australian community that persons who have come to Australia as dependents of students should take reasonable steps to abide by Australia’s immigration laws, as those laws are enacted by the Parliament of Australia.
The applicant’s history since his arrival in Australia has been one of a succession of delays in making various applications that could have, and should have, been made in a more timely fashion. In relation to the application to the Court, the applicant gave no explanation as to why he made no enquiries as to what could be done after receiving an unfavourable Tribunal decision, other than to say that he had no access to community support, and had been subject to “difficult” life circumstances.
Conclusion
In all therefore, it is not in the interests of the administration of justice to extend time. It is appropriate to refuse the application. I will make the appropriate order.
I certify that the preceding seventy-one (71) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Nicholls
Date: 20 December 2017
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Administrative Law
-
Immigration
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Standing
-
Appeal
0
18
2